U.S. Bank/MERS loses Every Time in State Supreme Courts

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: WHEN THE SUPREME COURTS OF EACH STATE LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF MERS AND US BANK, THEY ARE UNIFORM IN THEIR DECISION. US BANK IS A STRAW-MAN AND THE COURTS DON’T LIKE STRAW-MEN.

The bottom line is that the foreclosures in the name of MERS were all bad. That means they are at worst reversible and most probably will be subject to a decree that they were void. US Bank does not fare much better. Their use of forged and fabricated instruments combined with the dubious authority of MERS, together with the fact that the person signing on behalf of MERS was not an employee or officer creates a factual void. The only way US Bank or any other bank can win is by getting past the Judge on the issue of pleading of proof. If they are required to actually state their case and bring forth witnesses to authenticate documents, and be subject to cross examination and discovery they would lose. But that doesn’t happen because either they win with the Judge on the front end of the case (threshold issues in pleading) or they settle using confidentiality statements.

I am receiving an increase in the number of letters I receive telling me how pleased the homeowner is with the result of his/her settlement despite the fact that they can’t tell me the terms. The Banks avoid discovery and hearings at which they must proffer evidence at all costs. They really have nothing to lose since they neither funded the loan nor acquired it. If they get the house, they have a windfall, if they don’t they lost nothing. So their strategy, more than anything else, is simply to make it as difficult as possible on homeowners so that most drop out of the contest. Don’t drop out! Persistence pays!

Round Up of State Supreme Court Decisions
By Jake Naumer July 26, 2011 at 9:09 pm
>
> How will our Arizona Supreme Court decide the certified questions in
> Vasquez?  I don’t know, but let’s look to other state supreme courts
> deciding issues of notes, deeds of trust, mortgages and foreclosure in
> the last year or two:
>
> Vermont:
>
> US Bank’s Allonge and Affidavits Don’t Pass Muster Vermont Supreme C
>
> Massachusetts Supreme Court
>
> Ibanez Compendium
>
> Maine Supreme Court
>
> Maine High Court Reverses Foreclosure, Paperwork Untrustworthy in Wall St J
>
> Kansas Supreme Court
>
> Landmark v. Kessler
>
> The relationship that MERS has to Sovereign is more akin to that of a straw
> man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A mortgagee and a
> lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests,
> especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual
> language. The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from > a
> lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage
> creditor, or lender.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1034 (8th ed. 2004). By statute,
> assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. K.S.A.
> 58-2323. Although MERS asserts that, under some situations, the mortgage
> document purports to give it the same rights as the lender, the document
> consistently refers only to rights of the lender, including rights to receive
> notice of litigation, to collect payments, and to enforce the debt obligation.
> The document consistently limits MERS to acting “solely” as the nominee of the
> lender.
>
> Georgia Supreme Court
>
> US Bank loses on certified questions regarding attestation and
> acknowledgment of recorded documents for foreclosure
>
> Arkansas Supreme Court
>
> http://courts.arkansas.gov/court_opinions/sc/2009a/20090319/published/08-1299.
> pdf
>
> “Permitting an agent such as MERS purports to be to step in and act without a
> recorded lender directing its action would wreak havoc on notice in this
> state”
>
>
>
> and let’s throw in a Michigan appellate court just for fun:
>
> The Michigan Court of Appeals issued an opinion with potentially
> far-reaching effects: MERS – the Mortgage Electronic Registration
> System – lacks standing to foreclose by advertisement on many homes in
> Michigan.
>
> The case is Residential Funding Co., LLC v Saurman, Docket No. 290248
> (Decided April 21, 2011).  In that case, two home owners challenged
> their evictions at the end of their redemption periods claiming that
> MERS did not conduct a valid foreclosure.  Their reasoning was that
> MERS did not hold the underlying debt, which the Michigan foreclosure
> by advertisement statute requires it to hold.  The court agreed, and
> held that the foreclosure sales were invalidated.
>

Tags: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND
Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |